Just in the news today, Obama, a front-runner candidate for the Democratic Party, voiced that the would not wear the American flag pin (that many politicians do) on the outside of his coat. Many politicians wear this because it shows their dedication to our country and their partriotic beliefs. However, Obama claims that this pin demonstrates "fake patriotism" that isn't "from the heart." He states: “I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest. Instead, I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe, what will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.”
A link to the full article is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/us/politics/05obama.html
There has been much debate as to whether he is being unpatriotic or whether his views are unrealistic.
Do you agree or disagree with him?
Do you think that this will affect any future decisions made by voters during this election? How can something so minor like this affect something SO HUGE (the election)?
I think that Obama should just wear the pin to appease those who oppose him; it is such a simple thing to do. What is there to lose in wearing it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
i don't know why he did something as silly or petty as this.
the flag pin, to me, is a symbol of our united nation (especially after 9/11). the whole thing with obama is ridiculous.
i would imagine that since he wants to be the president of the united states, he would be so proud of our nation that he would AT LEAST wear a flag pin. at least... that's what i thought. ^_^;
-coe
He raises a good point about showing patriotism from the heart instead of some little pin. I feel like people have forgotten that there are other ways to display patriotism than by wearing flag print boxers.
In my opinion, people whose vote is affected by whether a candidate is wearing a little pin or not should not even vote. Part of being ready to be president is being able to stand up to things that you believe in and not be swayed by what 'everyone' else is doing. Though this is a very minor instance, it demonstrates that Obama is unafraid to show America that patriotism is more than a pin, more than the flag. Patriotism is honestly telling "the american people what I believe" and "what will make this country great."
it's really not that hard for him to wear it... it's not like the flag pin is offensive or anything... what exactly does he have against it? he can be patriotic from the heart, as he says, but he can also show a bit by wearing the pin. it's not that big of a deal.
i agree that people shouldn't vote for someone just because they do or don't wear a pin. but i think that it ties back to thom's post - should people vote for someone because of his or her appearance?
perhaps instead of talking about whether or not he's going to wear the pin, he could just talk about and focus on the issues that face our country now... ^_^;;
-coe
I really don't think it should be that big of a deal either way. I mean, yes, the flag pin is a good way to show that he supports our country, but as he said, he would rather show people. It may not be that hard to just put on a pin, but I don't think he should have done it if he didn't want to. The whole controversy over this seems really silly to me, I don't understand why it matters at all. And I think that if he actually does show his patriotism and his reasons for wanting to become president, then the pin is just unecessary, in my opinion.
While I agree that a pin really shouldn't make a difference either way, I can understand Obama's decision being based on thefact that he does not like the way the pin is being used. Anyone can wear a pin and some people will see that person as more patriotic, even if they are only trying to better their own situation. It might be less of a statement about his own personal wearing of the pin and more of a statement about the hypocrisy often present in using it. I dont' think it was the best political choice, though, because now all the conversation is about a little piece of plastic as opposed to the hypocrisy itself, which he could have focused on in other ways.
I think this is a good move because a large part of obama's campaign is that he isn't a typical politician, and the flag pin is part of a "typical politician" uniform...I think it's worn so often it becomes a meaningless symbol. The absence of the pin signifies breaking with the old political system more than a lack of patriotism.
Also, I doubt he wanted this to become an issue...the media started it, and then it escalated, as things tend to do in the media. It's good to see he didn't back down to what was a manufactured controversy, and expressed himself eloquently. I sincerely doubt anyone would have noticed such a small issue otherwise.
(Source that the media started from this column found on google news: http://www.kansascity.com/news/columnists/mike_hendricks/story/307736.html )
I agree with diego that it was probably the media that made this a bigger deal... So... my question is who noticed that he wasn't wearing a pin? and frankly... who cares? It's an article of clothing... not even... more of an accessory....
But then, as Coe mentioned... does a candidates appearance matter? If, for example, a candidate wore jeans and a t-shirt to a debate would s/he be negatively impacted? What effect does clothing specifically have? I mean - appearance plays a role... much more than it used to before television and internet.
do you guys think this is a good thing or not?
As unfortunate as it is, a candidate's appearance does matter. People make quick judgments based on looks, and although this is not good, it is instinctual. I know that today, the media (or I actually don't know who...) makes sure that each candidate is dressed similarly. I remember in '04 when Kerry and and Bush had a debate that both of them were directed to wear the same color tie. This way people make judgments not based on what color tie the candidate is wearing or who looks better, but rather what they are saying.
Somehow that link isn't working right now...
Anways, I agree with much of what has been said about this whole situation being blown out of proportion. I don't think it was necessary of him to say that the pin demonstrates, "fake patriotism," because many people may wear it in the genuine spirit of patriotism. I think he should have made it more clear that for himself he personally feels like he can demonstrate his patriotism through other means.
I'm kind of curious what you guys consider to be patriotic and unpatriotic. Some of the issues of patriotism have already been brought up in this blog. For instance, is not supporting our armed forces unpatriotic? Is criticizing our government unpatriotic? What constitutes patriotism?
Patriotism can be anything to anyone. To me, critizing the government can be patriotic, because you want to make your country better. The problem with patriotism is that it has become publically defined. It seems like now any time someone is on television live they where the pin. On football pregame shows, all five commentators where it. Why do they need to do that? I don't need to know that they are patriotic. But in the end, it is their choice (or the network's) and I don't think I, nor anyone else has a right to question one's love for a country based on whether they wear a pin or not.
Tal got me thinking about appearances and their importance, and then I remembered I read somewhere that a political analyst once said that if Al Gore started losing weight it meant he intended on running for the presidency in 2008! This is kind of funny to think about, but it's definitely true.
Considering the democratic presidential nominees right now, In my opinion Dennis Kucinich is not going to have much luck, not only because America probably won't elect someone with such liberal views right now, but he is also 5'7" and is the brunt of many height jokes already. I don't mean to be height-ist, but even political analysts say that height and body size matters in a candidate.
The same goes for Bill Richardson and weight. Here is an excerpt from an interview he did with the Albuquerque Tribune:
Tribune: Governor, a lot of us know that you're working hard to lose weight, but your face also looks different. Your teeth are much straighter than when you were first elected. You've had at least one mole removed. Have you had or would you consider having plastic surgery?
Richardson: I've lost a lot of weight. And I did have a mole taken out. I did have a chipped tooth that was fixed.
I believe that the American people want to see the candidates and anybody running for office be physically fit.
This has been a problem for me. I've been on every diet. I've been on every possible effort to lose weight. And I finally have lost weight, but I haven't finished losing weight. I want to lose more.
http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2007/feb/06/bill-richardson-tribune-interview/
adding onto the appearance comments here...
do you think that people will vote for barack obama just because he's african american, or for hilary clinton just because she's a woman? do you think this is a good way of voting?
-coe
coe, for some reason I see it the opposite way.
do you think people WOULDN'T vote for Barak Obama because he's African American or for Hillary because she's a woman?
Aren't people more comfortable voting for someone more "normal"? (and by normal I mean someone who is similar to candidates who have been elected before- white, male, military service)
Sadly enough, the stereotypes placed on certain types of people (which can be defined by gender, skin color, clothing choice, etc.) definitely play into politics. Has anyone ever said to you that the U.S. "isn't ready for a female president"? What does that mean? I sure have no idea, and when I asked the person who said it to me, she couldn't give me a straight answer! (and yes, it was a female who told me this).
Image matters in people's definitions of political eligibility, but I think political eligibility is different than patriotism. I think one of the beauties of this country is that patriotism is undefined. Being 'un-American' is not against the law like being 'anti-Turkey' is in Turkey. People show their patriotism in all sorts of ways, whether they do or don't support the war, the current administration, the Constitution, or any issue that is present in their lives.
Patriotism and image are connected, especially at high political levels (such as President), but they are not the same and one does not define the other.
What Jordan just said relates to one of the first readings we did in HHB, CHapter 1 Reading 2, in which we considered why people feel the need to categorize other people into "little boxes". I think that a lot of the time it is easier emotionally for people to think of others in categories than to consider the infinite potential for human individuality every time they see a person. Similarly, it is a lot easier to make a decision about which candidate you want to vote for if one of them is ruled out by the personality traits assigned to them due to their weight, race, gender, etc., and if these traits are already ingrained in a person's mind, they often won't want to contradict them. So, I definitely think that as sad as it is, race and gender will play a noticeable role in the results of the upcoming election.
Of course people are going to vote for/ against Obama and Clinton because of they're "novel" traits for a presidential candidate. African Americans will most identify with Obama and vote for him. Women will view Clinton as being the most supportive of womens rights and vote for her. White supremicists and neo nazis will vote against Obama because of his race and traditionalist will vote against hilary because of her gender. it's a wrinkle embedded in our society that hasn't been wrinkled out.
And yet I am a woman and I'm not necessarily voting for Clinton. While these generalizations exist, they are not set in stone.
Keep in mind Jordan, the majority of voters aren't as open to difference and change as you may be. So while you may not make any choice based on race or gender, many people will, and some will do so subconsciously.
On the issue of Obama's race or Hilary's gender attracting voters, I'm not exactly sure how big of a difference it will actually make come election day. The majority of African-American voters already vote Democrat (89% i think), so I doubt having a black candiate will swing any additional African-
American votes. Women who support Hilary are, on the most part, left of center and would mostly likely vote Democrat anyway. Her favorable/unfavorable ratings amongst independent voters is split almost 50-50.
I think the presence of Obama and Clinton as top-tier candidates is an important step for their underprivileged groups, but I think that America is still far from voting for many other candidates. Would America at large be willing to vote for or even consider a candidate who was Latino, Asian-American, or of Middle-Eastern descent? Or not Christian? Or openly not heterosexual?
I think it would be hardest for a candidate who is of middle-eastern descent or not christian (specifically if the canditate is muslim) because of the country's current relations with primarily muslim countries in the middle east. That's definitely not a good thing, but it's the situation.
I think if Obama has made it this far (and is very likely to go farther), other Latinos or Asian-Americans who are as smart and politically capable as Obama could as well. I don't really see a difference in their case.
The bigger issue is that we are even having this conversation. America obviously still has a long way to go before the "all men are created equal" part of the constituion is realized.
Post a Comment